Pckfn23 wrote:Who is saying the government should tell them what they should be?

What is wrong with telling a generation they can just do what they love is 2 fold.

Maybe I need to go back and read more to get this in context but it would appear I... *shudder*... agree with you!

Education is an odd subject because neither party has much in the way of a comprehensive platform and there is a lot of intermingling of traditional R and D viewpoints; very few people see things in an ideologically strict way.

And there really is a limit to how much influence the government can even have, or heck even schools. Children are ultimately the byproduct of the educational environment their parents create for them, which starts first and foremost with their parents lifestyle.

Exactly. Family economic factors are by far the biggest predictor of academic success. If the main objective is to bring the bottom up in the academic success, the best way is to improve the economic situation of those families.

Pckfn23 wrote:Who is saying the government should tell them what they should be?

What is wrong with telling a generation they can just do what they love is 2 fold.

Maybe I need to go back and read more to get this in context but it would appear I... *shudder*... agree with you!

Education is an odd subject because neither party has much in the way of a comprehensive platform and there is a lot of intermingling of traditional R and D viewpoints; very few people see things in an ideologically strict way.

And there really is a limit to how much influence the government can even have, or heck even schools. Children are ultimately the byproduct of the educational environment their parents create for them, which starts first and foremost with their parents lifestyle.

Exactly. Family economic factors are by far the biggest predictor of academic success.

But I do think that is merely a proxy. Money itself isn't what causes success (a point I think that is lost on most liberals). Much like how a heart rate monitor doesn't actually measure calorie expenditure; on average for some types of exercise it is very accurate, but there are cases where it is utterly useless, it is just the nature of proxy measurements.

People that make a lot of money were more often than not raised in an environment that led to their career success. When it comes to raising their kids, it is what they know, chances are they will raise their kids to be successful as well. But there are plenty of situations where money itself would not be a great predictor. But it is obvious that there is a strong relationship.

Just like how measurable school quality is pretty much a function of the neighborhood it is in; it doesn't have a whole lot to do with the school itself. When lots of well educated high earners clump together to raise kids, their kids are bound to be very successful at education, and hence the schools are measurably awesome, even if they have very little in the way of real advantages from the school system.

Just looking at the main advantages my kid(s) have; I "only" have a BCE, which means I'm the least educated adult family member my children will ever meet. Most of the family, on both sides, have a masters or higher. We could afford to move specifically for the schools (and were willing to make sacrifices to do so), which has little to do with the schools itself, the schools just being an indicator of the education level and career success of the neighborhood families (and child density, when schools make a neighborhood disproportionately expensive, the only people that move in are those with kids, moving in for the schools). We can count on the fact that all of the close friends our kids make, are also going to be from well educated and successful families that care deeply about their kids education. My kids do have huge advantages, but money itself is really only a proxy.

I mean, say on the flipside I had come into big money via some other means, gambling, sports, inheretance from someone I never knew, etc.... None of the family had ever gone to college on either side, or a few did, and they weren't terribly successful at it. Instead of moving for the schools, we got the best house we could afford, ignoring what school quality says about the area (always get more bang for the buck when the schools suck). Even with way more money in the bank that I currently have, kids raised in this environment would be at a massive disadvantage compared to my kids.

What you say isn't wrong, I was more speaking to the fact that if a student's basic needs are not met, the chances of them actually being able to learn are very low. That is where the economic factors come into play. In that way it is more directly impacting their ability to learn. While obviously there are always exceptions the vast majority of kids that do not have their basic needs met outside of school are not successful academically.

Yes schools are essentially a product of their community and kids are essentially a product of their surroundings. To generalize.

Pckfn23 wrote:Who is saying the government should tell them what they should be?

What is wrong with telling a generation they can just do what they love is 2 fold.

Maybe I need to go back and read more to get this in context but it would appear I... *shudder*... agree with you!

Education is an odd subject because neither party has much in the way of a comprehensive platform and there is a lot of intermingling of traditional R and D viewpoints; very few people see things in an ideologically strict way.

And there really is a limit to how much influence the government can even have, or heck even schools. Children are ultimately the byproduct of the educational environment their parents create for them, which starts first and foremost with their parents lifestyle.

Agreeing there is a problem isn't quite the same as agreeing upon a solution though! So the struggle continues!

“Quite frankly, very few people know what they’re talking about." -- Ted Thompson